by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible
nor do the usually say anything about the believers intelligence or rationality,
Wobble, I don't know if Dawkins or Hitchens, et al, do this. But there are a lot of atheists that DO. Including making false assumptions about character or reasons. Just because they believe. I think that is what Mickey Mouse meant.
Peace,
Tammy
You could well be right dear Tec, perhaps Mickey will notice the thread and expand on her original statement.
I know that is true, some Atheists are as guilty of imputing thoughts and motives to believers that may quite well not represent the person's feelings on the matter, if they do that they are as guilty of misrepresentation and generalising as the JW's !
Some Atheists assume for example, that all Bible believers take it literally and that they all believe the Bible is inerrant, of course we here on JWN know that is not the case for many many believers, i.e a number on here.
But it did sound as though Mickey might have been trying to say that belief in a god was a rational belief, and that intelligence was affected in some way by belief, maybe I was totally wrong and she was just speaking as you say. ?
Can you tell me what thread it was. I know I read that part, but I don't remember if I commented, because I can't remember what thread it is?
(though I would say that I believe faith is rational as well... some people do come to faith by reason, as well as evidence... it just might not be enough for another person to accept)
Peace,
Tammy
Hi everyone
I'm going to very gingerly swing open the door on this thread and tip toe into the fray with a degree of trepidation, because I'm very conscious that this is a hot topic and something that people can get very emotional about. I must just say that I was a bit sad reading some of the comments. I don't know what Mickey Mouse has said prior to the quoted comment, as I can only assume that something in the context must have made her words seem more shocking. As I understand it, here is what she said:
"Religious belief is both rational and intelligent."
I assume for this statement to have provoked such interest, there would need to be many who disagree with it, considering the fact that religious belief may very broadly encompass any kind of belief in an intelligent creator. I, for one (and with greatest respect to Wobble, Cantleave and all the other posters) can't really see what all the fuss is about. If someone has 'weighed the evidence' as it were, looking at the scientific arguments both for and against, and decided not to completely dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer as a reason behind our existence, then what's the harm? Bear in mind, the statement itself is not EXCLUSIVE of any other theories to the contrary. It just expresses the thought that one CAN believe in an intelligent creator, and still be an intelligent and rational person. The same can be said for atheists, who nobody should dismiss as being unintelligent or irrational simply because their search has led them to the opposite conclusion. We all just need to keep an open mind.
At this point I would just add that religious fanatics aren't the only ones who believe in a designer. If you look hard enough, there are noted scientists out there who throw their support behind the 'creationist' camp. If you don't believe me, you might want to check out In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation by Dr John Ashton which is available on Amazon, or I assume, in most good book shops. I realise that for every pro-creationist book there are probably ten pro-atheist books, but my point is that there are two sides to every argument, and the one who shouts loudest isn't always the one who should be heard.
I have the greatest respect for some of those on this forum who feel strongly about atheism, and I will always value their opinions and consider their words carefully. However, I would never dream of telling an atheist that he is "lazy" for believing that there is no God, in just the same way as I would take exception to being called "lazy" for seriously considering the option that there is an intelligent designer. Words like "supernatural" and "miracles" can very easily be used to dismiss religious belief, but they are in fact only words that attempt to define the unexplainable. The more we learn about science, the more we realise just how much of what we thought we knew defies explanation. I would never encourage anyone to stop taking an interest in science in favour of hiding behind a "blanket explanation" through belief in God, nor would I encourage a scientist to dismiss God completely from the equation simply because the "supernatural" must be dismissed as ancient myth. One of the things that makes life so brilliant is that it is full of possibilities, whatever you suspect the real truth behind our existence may be. As cantleave said, I am completely against setting boundaries for what is possible, but sometimes we can put up boundaries against boundaries themselves by closing our minds to concepts to which we may attach some bad experience.
Put simply, I am against being militant, fundamentalist or evangelical to the point of dismissing, demeaning or otherwise belittling anyone's beliefs, whether your "religion" is atheism or creationism. We know far too little about the universe to be dogmatic and blinkered for or against any point of view. That's why I prefer to keep an open mind, which I value even more since it was freed from the stranglehold of the Society.
Cedars
My comments were in this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/201634/3/What-religion-does-Steven-Hassan-practices
I wonder whether somewhere on the internet, there is a forum of people who have exited political cults debating whether Steve is republican, democrat or otherwise and whether he votes. Equally irrelevant.
If Steve was a fundy I would be concerned, but he is not. By the way, I would be equally concerned if he was a fundamentalist atheist, in common with many on this forum.
and
I would use the term 'fundamentalist atheist' to describe those atheists who are intolerant of other people's religious beliefs and conclude they cannot be rational or intelligent.
I have nothing against atheists in general. Or Christians. I do have an issue with bigots.
Which is not exactly the same as saying "religious belief is both rational and intelligent". As an agnostic I don't really have a horse in this race but I think the assertion that a person with any form of religious belief is therefore irrational is rubbish. There are both rational and irrational beliefs.
I don't have a particular problem with Richard Dawkins; he does in my opinion come across as arrogant at times but that is more a question of style than anything.
I agree with what cedars wrote above.
I think a person who claim a religious person cannot be intelligent or rational is not only grossly ignorant, he is also dangerous by promoting a view which ignoring the very real problem very intelligent people can believe very wrong things (eg. fundamentalist islam, scientology, etc.).
A religious person cannot be intelligent or rational.
I am a militant, demeaning, belittling atheist, who has extreme faith in my "religion" (what religion? It's like saying an anarchist is running for president or something along those lines).
By the way tec, to say that someone comes to faith with evidence is a contradictory statement. Faith is belief without evidence. So nope.
Praise no God!
War to you!
A slave of nature!
(I am the stereotypical atheist, or at least the stereotypical atheist in the eyes of christians.... Lol)
I am sure that intelligence has nothing to do with it, however I would assert that all belief in the supernatural is irrational.
By "supernatural" I would include all religious belief, magic, miracles, superstition etc.
As modern humans we are only partially rational beings, some of us try to overcome our irrational tendencies others indulge in them and get cross with those of us who don't go along with the lazy relativism that thinks it rude to point out irrational thinking in others.
Sorry Cedars but your post is a classic example of what I mean. Of course science does not know everything but there are an awful lot of things we do know for absolute certain.
Just expressing where I am with it all, others are welcome to see things differently and seek opportunities to "point out irrational thinking in others" if they feel this is productive. I'm certainly not cross with anyone who wants to do this, although I would always encourage mutual respect between atheists and creationists, as bizarre as that notion may seem. I certainly don't think I am lazy, unintelligent or irrational for feeling the way I described above.
Cedars
I am sure that intelligence has nothing to do with it, however I would assert that all belief in the supernatural is irrational.
By "supernatural" I would include all religious belief, magic, miracles, superstition etc.
Cofty, when it comes to 'belief in the supernatural', my position is that just because I (or science) cannot explain something, that doesn't mean it's impossibe. That doesn't mean I attribute it to fairies either.
